Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... -... ".--'- <br />.., . <br /> <br />OOlJ565 WORK IN PROGRESS. Quadrangle-level geologic hazard mapping is under <br />way on the entire target area. This.is badly needed because of im~acts <br />on roads and burgeoning residential subdivisions with known landsllde <br />potential. This work will be completed in fiscal year 1986-87. <br /> <br />FUNDING SOURCES: SEF, SGF, USGS. <br /> <br />18) <br /> <br />Montrose Counties. <br />t\~enty':-one mil e <br />section of this State highway during spring runoff in 1984 and 1985. The <br />CDOH has completed a geologic study of each slide area with <br />recommenda~ions for repair, relocation or other mitigation. Repair work <br />was underway in summer of 1986. No apparent action by CGS needed. <br /> <br />of Paonia, Delta Count. This slide <br />, and destroyed ,200 feet of a major irrigation <br />ditch that serves the Paonia area. CGS, on request, made a field <br />investigation and general recommendations. Because of the urgency of <br />restoring irrigation water, work was started immediately to remove most <br />of the slide mass with the intent of rebuilding at the same approximate <br />location. <br /> <br /> <br />19) <br /> <br /> <br />DEBRIS FLOW TARGET AREAS <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />j <br />, <br />I <br /> <br />1) Vail and adjacent developing valley lands, Eagle County. Debris flows <br />are common throughout this area, and generalized hazard mapping can be <br />easily done based on the distinctive topographic/photomorphic expression <br />of debris fans. 'The entire incorporated area in Vail has been mapped for <br />hazard zones in moderate detail by a consultant to the city. The <br />remaining problem within the city appears to be that of arriving at <br />,acceptable legal, administrative and funding arrangements for dealing <br />with mitigation. Within unincorporated Eagle County, and the smaller <br />towns, the State and County cooperate in land-use reviews and mitigation <br />on a case by case basis. <br /> <br />2) Glenwood S rin sand vicinit , debris flows. Much of the city of <br />G enwoo prlngs an enVlrons 1S ocated on the coalescing debris fans of <br />dozens of small, steep basins subject to debris flows. Through the past <br />fifteen years, CGS and our consultants have provided a very adequate <br />technical information base to the town for land-use decisions and <br />mitigation. As with many other communities the need is to find the will <br />and the way to control future land use, and to finance mitigation in <br />areas already developed. <br /> <br />3) Ouray and vicinity, debris flows. Most of this town is affected by <br />debris flows and torrent flooding from several converging c~eeks. <br />Efforts to channelize and control two of the creeks over the ,ast eighty <br />years have only been partially successful, and most of the larger events <br />"jump the channel". In the last few years with advice from State <br />agencies and consultants, a plan for improving the channels and adding a <br />debris fence and debris basin were developed. Unfortunately, only the <br />channel "improvements" were actually built. <br /> <br />CGS worked for several years on hazard mapping that included debris-flow <br />prone areas adjacent to the town. This report was cOI~pleted in the fall <br />of 1986. <br /> <br />- 6 - <br /> <br />